Olga Kurylenko is no stranger to action movies. The Ukrainian-born actress has appeared in several testosterone-fueled flicks, including 2007’s Hitman, 2014’s The November Man, 2012’s Erased, and, perhaps most famously, 2008’s James Bond entry, Quantum of Solace. But in all those films, she was a supporting player behind male stars (respectively) Timothy Olyphant, Pierce Brosnan, Aaron Eckhart, and Daniel Craig. That changes in her latest action entry, Momentum, which puts the actress’ name above the title and her character at the center of the film.

Kurylenko plays Alex Farraday, a thief called out of retirement for one last score. Though this high-tech heist nets Alex and her fellow thieves more than they bargain for. In addition to a cache of diamonds, they swipe a flash drive containing treasonous evidence against a mysterious US Senator (Morgan Freeman). Unfortunately, Alex’s identity is compromised during the heist and the Senator sends a “cleaning crew,” led by Mr. Washington (James Purefoy), to Capetown, South Africa, to kill the thieves and retrieve the drive. But Alex has other intentions.

If the biggest genre sin in film is a horror movie that isn’t scary, a close second has to be an action film that is utterly boring. This is the case with Momentum, brought to the screen by veteran camera operator-turned-rookie director Stephen S. Campanelli. To say it’s boring is not to say Campanelli doesn’t try; he does. It’s just that the screenplay (from Adam Marcus and Debra Sullivan) is a threadbare patchwork of undeveloped characters, underdeveloped ideas, and tired action tropes.

It starts with Alex and that opening gambit. While I’m all for a film fading into the heart of a tense scene already in progress, that scene needs either quick context or a hint of something more cerebral that will payoff later. The intellectualism (such as it is) of Momentum is nowhere near the latter, but the former is abandoned entirely. By the end of the heist, all we know is Alex’s crew stole diamonds (but we don’t know why); we know there is infighting between certain members of the crew (but we don’t know the history); we know Alex’s big “reveal” must be devastating since it’s suggested everyone in the bank be murdered because they saw her face (with no explanation as to why such extreme measures are necessary); and we know Alex came out of retirement for the score (but we don’t know what drove her to retire and come back). None of this is context, it’s convenience—the shortest of shortcuts.

By the end of the heist, the film feels like it’s in the second act of a sequel, like there are things that ought to already be known. They aren’t, and it cripples the film.

Those notes on Alex, by the way, are about as deep as deep as she gets (although there is one other facet that is only hinted at—again for convenience—and another that is revealed too late in the film to actually care), but she’s not alone. Of the other two key characters in this film, Mr. Washington is more caricature than character (although ultimately a pretty good baddie, thanks to Purefoy having some fun with the role), and the Senator is far too much a mystery to be believable (and a waste of Freeman’s talents).

The main plot is no better developed than the heist: Alex has a flash drive, the Senator wants the flash drive, Mr. Washington pursues Alex to retrieve the flash drive. People die in the process. There’s the movie. All that’s left is the action which, because there is nothing cohesive to attach it to, plays as an anthology of violent set-pieces connected by common characters instead of a series of high-octane conflict/resolution moments that advance a story.

That action is decent and it includes everything this type of movie should: guns and explosives, a car chase, fight scenes, etc. And while he doesn’t break any ground, Campanelli has a couple notable moments, but really nothing more than that. In fact, the best scene of the film includes one particularly effective torture scene, with the irony being the torture is only heard; yes, the best scene in the film takes place offscreen.

Put it all together and it’s not an action movie, it’s an arcade game that gives the viewer just enough character background and story information before getting out of the way of the endless cycle of moves.

As for Kurylenko, it’s hard to tell if she can rise to the challenge of carrying an action picture on her own. It’s clear she has the physicality for it, and given she is a woman playing in a genre thats dominated by men, it’s hard not to measure her against the likes of Linda Hamilton (the Terminator films), Sigourney Weaver (the Alien franchise), Charlize Theron as Furiosa from Mad Max Fury Road, and several others. It’s also unfair to do that to her, because the material those women had to work with was far superior to what Kurylenko has had to make due with here.

Momentum might have its moments, but those moments are no match for the onslaught of “meh” the rest of the picture delivers.

Russell Crowe’s shaky-but-inspired directorial debut, The Water Diviner, is a ballad honoring his native Australia, focusing on one of the most formative moments in the country’s history: the crippling defeat at the WWI battle of Gallipoli. Australia’s resolve and determination to rebuild following such an enormous loss of life is embodied in this film by a grieving farmer named Connor (Crowe) who lost his three sons at Gallipoli. He vows to journey back to the Ottoman empire, reclaim their bodies, and return them to Australia where they can rest in peace beside their mother, who literally perished under the weight of having outlived her children. Left beaten and stripped in the ashes of his former life, Connor’s only remaining purpose is to honor his family’s memory.

There’s an almost insurmountable problem standing in Connor’s way once he arrives at the scarred and scorched landscape where his sons were slain by gunfire: their remains lay buried among the thousands of scattered Turk and Australian bones scattered across the battlefield. Thankfully, Connor’s a water diviner, someone who can intuit the exact spot where water can be found underground; he made a living off his gift back home, but now must use for a more sullen purpose, locating his fallen sons.

Let’s get this out of the way: Yes, the idea that this man could pinpoint the spot where his sons died on the battlefield is utter nonsense. But in a melodrama like this, in which emotions are sweeping and inflated, it’s understandable that logic and probability get inflated as well. The success of the main storyline revolving around Connor’s oath to retrieve his sons is two-fold: Crowe’s acting is sharp and grounded and honest, and the story’s presentation is slick, easy to follow yet unpredictable.

The pebble in the film’s shoe is a parallel romance plot in which an Istanbul hotel owner (Olga Kurylenko) who, still reeling from the loss of her husband in the war, has developed a searing hatred for Australians, somehow learns within a few days to push all that aside for the sake of Connor’s dimples and muscles and manly beard. Connor’s interest in her is hard to buy as well: his mission to find his sons is serious business, but hey, I guess he’s got time to flirt and go on dates with a pretty lady while he ignores ghosts of his wife and children lurking in the back of his mind. It feels like a big, dumb distraction from the main narrative, which is actually very well done. Connor’s fast friendship with the woman’s peppy, eager-to-help son (Dylan Georgiades) is cute and occasionally good for a laugh, but whenever Connor refocuses on his primary task, the relationship with the boy and his mother feels distant and trivial.

Crowe’s expanded his resume by directing for the first time, but he seems much more comfortable when he exchanges his director’s cap for Connor’s black brimmed hat. He’s a great actor, and that remains his primary strength as he consistently fortifies the film with his gritty performance. His craftiness as a filmmaker is limited by contrast. The battle scenes in the film, for example, are comprehensible and laid out logically, but lack artfulness. The staging and choreography are good, but he never places the camera in the most practical place rather than the most interesting place. The resulting action set pieces look too organized and manicured to feel climactic. The Water Diviner isn’t nearly as ugly and misguided as Unbroken, Angelina Jolie’s sophomore directorial feature, but Crowe’s got some serious holes in his directing game.

As a straightforward historical adventure, The Water Diviner would have been a fine film; unfortunately, it’s lovesick, spending too much time with its head in the clouds, dawdling with a disposable romance that makes the film feel cheap and American-ized. Crowe’s passion is evident, though, in his lived-in performance as a golden-hearted father carrying a load of regret on his back. The film’s got issues, but it’s a sincere, mournful celebration of a country that turned the pain of loss into strength.

Considering that Terrence Malick has never put out consecutive films less than five years apart, one time it was two decades, putting out a film only a year after Tree of Life is very uncharacteristic. Rumor has it that the prolific director is actually working on several films right at the moment. The sudden surge of urgency is unknown, but very welcoming. To the Wonder shares the same narrative style as Tree of Life by showing but never telling the story. Often situations are suggested or hinted at but never quite fully spelled out, forcing the viewer to read between the lines. To the Wonder is even more subtle and less cohesive than Tree of Life, so if you struggled with that on Tree of Life, this film will likely produce similar results.

At the beginning Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) wander the French coast madly in love with one another. They explore the beautiful cathedral at Mont St. Michel which they call the Wonder and clasp their hands together at what ends up being the pinnacle peak of their relationship. Shortly after that Neil must relocate back to the States and convinces Marina and her little daughter to move with him. The flat countryside landscape of Oklahoma is a stark contrast to the city life in Paris Marina is used to. Not only does Marina not fit in to her new surroundings but her relationship with Neil is unraveling with each passing moment.

The couple drifts away from each other for no specific reason other than they never quite seem to be on the same beat of the drum. Malick wonderfully symbolizes this in a shot when the couple are on different floors of their home walking into separate rooms. But they are not the only ones in a crucial crossroad in their lives. A local priest Father Quintana (Javier Bardem) preaches the word of God to others but seems to have little direction or happiness in his own life. What these characters have in common is that they are searching for something that is only felt and not seen. In Marina’s case it is love that she is searching for, while the priest is pursuing his faith.

To the Wonder borrows many of the aesthetics found in Tree of Life. The camera always seems to be moving along with the characters, rarely ever is it stationary. Many similar objects appear in both films such as; beautiful stained glass churches, plenty of nature shots of trees and water, and heavy focus on the emotional reactions of the lead actors. Also similar is that the dialog takes a back seat to the stunning visuals of Malick’s visual poetry that is set against a perfectly chosen score. Most of the dialog will cut out mid-way through a sentence, as if the words are not really worth hearing.

Like most of Malick’s films, To the Wonder will not be for everyone. In fact, it may not even be for most. What might frustrate some viewers is how elusive the film is. Being that it features detached characters that are all looking for some intangible item makes the film seem very distant. Malick mostly succeeds at the impossible task of capturing these intangibles such as being in love and being directionless, while rarely relying on words to describe what is happening.

Affleck barely has any lines in the film and none of them were all that important. His character is withdrawn and the fact he spends most of the time in the frame, but seldom in the foreground exemplifies that. I realize that the film purposely does not give much detail about Ben, but I cannot help but wonder if a little more time was spent getting to know him would have been more beneficial. Going with a lifelike approach to its characters and their circumstances yields split results. In its favor, the film captures human nature without dramatizing anything, but it is at the cost of not having much of an emotional punch.

To the Wonder is such an absorbing film that it is not easy to form an instant opinion about it because you must let the film sink in for a while. Essentially the film is a two hour visual masterpiece with a plot that could be summed in ten seconds. Yet, even with a rather simplistic overall story, the film explores complex areas such as the dynamics of relationships, love, and faith. To the Wonder is a visual marvel to look at but its ambiguous form makes it frustratingly impenetrable at times.

To The Wonder is Terrence Malick’s uncharacteristically quick follow-up to his 2011 stroke of genius work of The Tree of Life. There were a lot of similarities in each of their trailers; both have excellent orchestra music accompanying characters that spend a lot of the time running through fields as if they are trying to escape from something. Malick appears to have made yet another visual masterpiece, one that could be a companion piece to his previous film.

Ben Affleck will likely be doing his more serious work of his acting career with his lead role as Neil. He and his girlfriend live happily together in Oklahoma until her visa expires, forcing her to return back to Paris. Making the situation complicated is when Neil’s childhood sweetheart (Rachel McAdams) re-enters his life.

Watch the official trailer for To The Wonder: